Click here to join the NEWSWEEK community, post comments and subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
Babak Dehghanpisheh
Larry Kaplow
Rod Nordland
Lennox Samuels
Silvia Spring
As a soldier here in Iraq for my third trip, I can tell you without a doubt that the surge has worked. My first year here I got to see bone thin dirty children begging for food. I got to see the mud huts starting right up against the outer walls of billion dollar palaces. I saw firsthand a country in neglect with citizens subjected to worse than third world conditions living without clean water or electricity. I saw a proud people without hope praising us as liberators. By the time I came back for my third year I got to spend some time down town. I saw smiling well fed people moving through crowded open air markets. A country without hope now with Cars everywhere along side of goods and services. Satellite dishes now on every roof, which was punishable by death under Hussein. Basically an entire country moving away from the brink of destruction and into the light. A lot of you argue about whether or not we should have come here, I saw you can’t rewrite history. I can say personally that I know I have made a difference.
WHAT CAN WE GAIN FROM IRAQ?????????????????????
I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT, PLEASE TELL ME!
IF IT IS SOMETHING AKIN TO "WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS".................WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WOULD HAVE DECIDED TO SPEND 1000'S OF LIFES AN TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS WELL AS DESTROY YOU ECONOMIC FUTURE FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS TO IMPRESS SOMEONE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN, HEARD FROM OR WILL EVER IN THE FUTURE?
AP DATELINE TUE JUL 29 2008: Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain plans to blame front runner Barack Obama for the earth quake in California today, McCain says it's because Obama had NOT visited California in months, McCain says he is there for California and lives right next door. More to come...
I find it very insulting on behalf of Prsident Bush and Senator John Mccain. First, if bush would've listened to Colin Powell at the outset of the war that there should be more combat forces in the beginning possibly there would'nt have been as many American casualties as there are. And as for John Mccain, he prides himself as being knowledgeable on foreign policy and knowing how to win wars. Then why is it that he didn't recommend and/or back Colin Powell in the beginning. He states that he is a Maverick and that he makes decisions based on the love of the country verses politics. What happened way back when? I will tell you he didn't then and he doesn't now have a clue. He voted for the war from the outset which was a bad mistake, then he adopts Colin Powells' original strategy as his own. What a joke.
THERE HAS BEEN NO PROGRESS IN IRAQ..............PERIOD!
ANYTHING TO KNOWN ABOUT IRAQ, WILL NOT BE KNOWN WHILE WE ARE THERE!
IT IS LIKE A GANG GET TOGETHER WHEN THERE ARE COPS THERE!
STAY THE COURSE: KEEP ME IN OFFICE WHILE MY FAMILY FEEDS OFF THE AMERICAN MISERY LIKE VAMPIRES ON A HEMOPILIAC!
HEARTS AND MINDS OF IRAQIS = WORTHLESS!
PLEASE STATE WHAT WE GAINED IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WE PAID!
ANSWER....................ZIP!
coop: you have made an interesting point that even these die hsrd obama supporters cannot deny: obama DID STATE that the war was a lost cause and we should withdraw IMMEDIATELY.
Mccain has ALWAYS stated that he was for the surge and that progress is being made in great strides. He stated that we cannot leave until the job is done.
there is no denying these statements but it is obama who now shows his true self: a naive inexperienced politician who will promise ANYTHING to win the office he is running for.
This is his sole intention and motivation. Anything that does not further this goal is not important. He will figure it out as he goes along if he manages to win. How non-patriotic is this? you just want the job but still havent charted a clear course? obama bends with the wind of opinion and takes on the personality of everyone he meets with.
obama is not qualified.
Mccain is the ONLY choice.
It worked plain and simple. It was due to an increase in troops and obama would like to say that he was for it before he was against it and now for it again.
You forget that it is the Troops who win hearts and minds and obama dishonors them by taking away the hard work and sacrifice that these brave men and women have accomplished.
I am friends with MANY who are there and who have been there. Many who return have an anxiety thet these hard won gains will be erased by the cowardly approach espoused by obama.
Many return as private contractors to continue to contribute to keeping these gains in place. I know several who have done just that. Mccain inspires confidence as he has military service and life experience.
obama has proven his disdain for the troops by not visiting the wounded in Germany, mainly it seems because they could not be used as a photo opp therefore it was useless to comfort or show respect to these brave individuals. Says it all about him
OK SO WHAT..............THERE IS SOMEWHAT LESS VIOLENCE IN IRAQ THAN BEFORE THE SURGE!
THERE WAS NO GAIN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE............WHO, STRANGELY ENOUGH, FOOT THE BILL IN BOTH MONEY AND THIER CHILDREN!
THERE IS NO CHANCE FOR ANY GOOD TO COME FROM IRAQ...................WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT AFTER SADAM WAS KILLED................................................
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WIDE SPREAD MAYHEM(WHICH HAPPENED WITH US THERE), AND THE END RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE GROUPS CAUSING VIOLENCE STILL !
........................AND STRANGELY ENOUGH....................THEY WILL DECIDE AFTER WE ARE GONE IN 16 MONTHS......................MEANING WE MADE NO DIFFERENCE..........................EXCEPT WE WERE ABLE TO WASTE TRILLIONS MORE DOLLARS AND A PILE OF AMERICAN HEROS LOVES!
PLENTY OF PAIN........................NO GAIN!
McBush-Cheney wants to take credit for anything that looks positive and is a desperate candidate.
The GI Bill that he opposed and that was passed without his support is another good example. GW Bushwacker actually praised McBush-Cheney for his work on that bill that he opposed and had nothing to do with getting passed. Where was the "straight talk express" then when he should have refuted the credit? His incessant ramble about the surge and trying to take sole credit because he thinks it is so successful is getting awful old. The fact of the matter is that all it did was scatter the terroists to different parts of the Middle East where thay are now escallating the violence because we are so focused on Baghdad alone. Pakistan,Afhganistan, and Turkey are prime examples. This is also a good example of why the rest of the world looks so down on the USA as well. Here we have a candidate for president trying to take exclusive credit for what he perceives as a "victory" and completely ignoring any sacrifices other people or nations have made. Talk about the ultimate arrogance!! He forgets or ignores the people of Iraq who actually turned on Al Kaeda instead of fighting on their side against us them BEFORE the escalation of American troops. No credit for the sacrifices of the Iraqui people anywhere. No wonder so many hate our arrogance. This is clearly a repeat of the Bush mentality. This man McBush-Cheney needs to retire before he completely goes blank. We have had one President with Alzheimers and we don't need another. Being a fighter pilot in Vietnam that was shot down numerous time until he was caught and sat out the balance of the war in a prison camp doesn't qualify him as a National Security Expert in any way. It goes to show what a lousy pilot he was. I wonder how many millions of taxpayer dollars he wasted on lost aircraft by being a lousy pilot? Ask yourself why he has REFUSED to release his pshychlogical files. The man has lost it.
The problem for McCain is his "Judgment", if he really had superior military insight, he would have never agreed to go to Iraq until Afghanistan was "mission accopmlished". If mccain would have wanted to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where they make base and train, if he would have wanted to actually bring BIN LADEN to justice, if MCCAIN has TRUE judgment, he would have stood on the floor of the Senate and said "WRONG WAR< WRONG TIME!" We would have "WON" in Afghanistan, instead of "cutting" our ablility to supply more troops and "running" to Iraq, for a "WAR FOR OIL" and for the bush ego.
If McCain had done that, there would not have been a "SURGE" required, AT ALL. thousands of Iraqis and hundreds od Americans would have been saved...but NOPE! McCain and BUSH wanted to go to a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US, and star another war, and now MCCAIN AND BUSH want to go "bomb Iran, bomb bomb Iran". before AFGANISTAn or Iraq are clear...and you call that a "military mentality", you call that "Judgment"?
The problem for McCain is his "Judgment", if he really had superior military insight, he would have never agreed to go to Iraq until Afghanistan was "mission accopmlished". If mccain would have wanted to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where they make base and train, if he would ahev wanted to actually bring BIN LADEN to justice, if MCCAIN has TRUE judgment, he would have stood on the floor of the Senate and said "WRONG WAR< WRONG TIME!" We would have "WON" in Afghanistan, instead of "cutting" our ablility to supply more troops and "running" to Iraq, for a "WAR FOR OIL" and for the bush ego.
I'll say it for Obama, if you want to hear it, the "Surge" worked. Now when I was in the military a surge was called reinforcing the forward base. Once it was completed we held he ground or pull back. We did not declare victory, because the conflict was continuing. But in saying that, McCain has become a parrot "The surge has worked, the surge has worked, and I was right." But what are you going to do now that the surge has worked? Stand pat, pull back, or move forward?
People are having a really hard time understanding Obama's stance on the surge. Maybe this analogy will help:
A surgeon goes into the operating room and cuts off the patient's wrong leg. In the process of the surgery, the patient begins to bleed uncontrollably. The surgeon applies more stitches and gives the patient more blood. The patient lives. Everyone hails the surgeon as heroic.
Okay, so cutting off the wrong leg is the Iraq war, the uncontrollable bleeding is the mess that ensued, the surgeon's additional actions represent the surge, and the belief that the surgeon is heroic is analagous to McCain and Bush's and their supporters' view of the surge. Why won't Obama praise the surge? Because it doesn't address the true problem: THE SURGEON CUT OFF THE WRONG LEG!
Why should people be praised for helping to clean up a mess they created, especially when doing so won't bring back "the Leg," i.e., the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives that have been destroyed and the 3000+ American lives that have been lost in a war that did not make the world one bit safer. Obama is clear in his thinking about this war and his refusal to support the surge is consistent with his long-held stance. He has the larger picture in mind an we should, too.
In the case of the surgeon, while the patient's family might at first thank him for saving the patient's life, the next thing they'll do is sue his ass. We will never be in the right about what we did in Iraq, even if some of the things we do to try to get out of the situation work. Obama knows this and tells the truth about it, even when it doesn't help him politically - but McCain and Bush will never admit the truth about this war.
This is easy - McCain was and is right. Obama said the war was lost and he was get us out ASAP. Its no spin, it is what he said. He ought to stand up like a man and say he was wrong,,,but of course that would take some moral courage, which he lacks. Winning wars is not all about the military - anybody with any sense knows that. And this has not been all about the military, as brilliant as they have performed. The whole idea, as explained by Gen Petraeus, was to create a more secure Iraq so the political parties to the process could be begin to work things out. That is happening and Al Qaeda has lost and is not longer able to threaten the government. Ditto the various insurgencies who have learned that real power does not come in the form of bombs or guns.
Obama is rank amateur who has never, repeat never had to make the kind of tough decisions nor even had to actually manage or lead anything remotely close to the Presidency. Now he is caught in his own statements and cannot do the right thing. Its a pattern - he never does the right thing when caught...until relentless pressure causes him to change his mind. He better do it on the surge...quickly.
OMGcheck out what CornHolyO posted...lol sick.
Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/26/2008 12:36:01 AM
Comment: Got ya'll some more Handsome jokes. I can't stop masturbating. Maybe I'll make this a daily post..............
Q. Why will Bill Oriley vote for Barack Obama?
A. He saw that three pointer and thought there was "no spin".
Q. Why will sharks vote for Barack Obama?
A. Cause Obama already fed them Hillary, now it's McCain...a much better year for meat.
Q. How will Osama Bin Laden vote for John McCain?
A. From hte ranch in Crawford TX
Q. Why will Britney Spears vote for John McCain?
A. Becuase he father her another child and then left her like his first wife
guess that Viagra is working out for John...he was quoted saying..."whoops, I did it again".
Q. What do McCain and Bush have in common?
A. Wait their not the same person?
Q. Why doesn't McCain drink Bud?
A. He prefers BUSH.
Q. Why wouldn't McCain support the American troops?
A. He said he forgot there were any "heros" except himself.
NOBAMA!!!
Extra:
Larry Sinclair submitted this one....
What do EXXON and HolyRoller have in common?
A: Niether one knows how to handle their oil, but they both like "drilling".
Ladies and gentelman, please welcomeone of the few, one of the diluted, one of the 28%...shhhh, be very quite, they scare easy, sneak up slowly...now look closely, there you have it...a BUSH SUPPORTER.
"an unpopular war"...hammer, a country lead to war by a "man" who di so knowingly under false pretences, lies, using his own fear and terror. WE ALL SUPPORT THE TROOPS, saying anything else is just STUPID, SAD, and DESPERATE. then ther is the 80+ % of us who would not p!ss on bush if he was on fire.
"And to those of you who batter Bush for the Iraq war, I ask you to do a google search from 1991 thru the present and look at ALL of what happened in Iraq leading up to the invasion."...hammer
Did just that, guess what did not happen?
A: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE US....EVER!!!!
A2: IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11...EVER
A3: Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before us occupation.
A4: Bsuh/McCain stil NEVER mention BIN LADEN, remember him, he attacked us? Still a free man.
One last point if I may (rhetorical)...
"we trash our government officials whom we choose to lead us"...hammer
No we "trash" those who LIED and COMMITED CRIMES TO GET US THERE, and KEEP US THERE. Maybe the word you were looking for was "mis-lead"...
While the recent reduction in violence is due to many causes, it was the additional troops used to help push back the bad elements that enabled us to be at this point. Iraq's people buying into the fledgling democratic government has always been the key to peace and stability, but without the reduction in violence provided by the extra ground troops that would never had come about.
We learned a great lesson in shame when we dishonored our troops returning from an unpopular war,(like there has ever been a popular one?) so now instead we trash our government officials whom we choose to lead us. I give Bush a great deal of respect for standing up and doing what he and a large majority of people thought was right at the time. He deserves credit by following through and getting a tough job accomplished. And to those of you who batter Bush for the Iraq war, I ask you to do a google search from 1991 thru the present and look at ALL of what happened in Iraq leading up to the invasion. We learned another lesson in Viet Nam and that was to let the media create our perception of truth for us instead of finding the facts for ourselves and making an educated judgement of how things really are!
Here enjoy:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/3
Yeah how does Obama convert the racists and the chickenhearted of this country, concerned only of the WMDs and the "brown boogeymen" who will get you at 3am, what to do what to do. You se 80% of America believes that we are going in the WRONG direction, which McCain offers more of. Paint it with any brush you like and deny with all your might, it boils down to race, we ALL know it, we ALL see it, it's a clear as crystal. Not hispanics, Not blacks, Not women, Not YOUNGER WHITE voters, just the old crowd, the ones who swallowed but did not accept the "civil rights movement, those who say they don't like Obama because he's a "Muslim" and that's laughable, the word MUSLIM has simply taken the place of another word that is no longer acceptable to the public, not that it ever really was, but for a time, the time of this ONE group of OLDER WHITE MEN, you could use that other word and hate for the color of skin, that time is now gone. A new hatered has come and it's not what they want, it's what they can get away with, SO, they (older white men) don't hate him because he's black, nope, they hate him becuase he's Muslim, and they'll barelyadmit to that, they'll have some other bullsh!t excuse, "Experience" Obama has experienced more in his life that qualifies him to relate to TRUE Americans than some born with a silver spoon up his a$$, my daddy is an admiral, my wife is a billionaire, wanna and self procliamed "hero". Who has NEVER had to want for anything.
What Obama may lack in "experience" he MORE than makes up for in "INTELLIGENCE" I hear nobody arguing his intalligence, especially not 894th out of 899 McCain.
Obama also TRULY UNDERSTANDS diplomacy, not as McCain or Bush see it...that stupid step you have to pretend to go through before you bomb bomb somebody, but that diplomacy SAVES LIVES, American and foreign. Now I know that some of you blood thirsty chicken hawks think hey as long as more of them die than do Americans, we win, tell that to the nearly 4500 families that have lost their loved one in what John McCain described as a "WAR FOR OIL".
Obama has ALWAYS maintained that the REALwar America should be engaged in is in Afghanistan, where those who attacked us make base. That war has been ignored by Bush and McCain for years, it was only a week ago that McCain first mentioned Afghanistan, pitty. I guess Bin Laden is NOT a priority for McCain or Bush for that matter.
Obama has dignity, he has and still sticks to his character, where as McCain SWORE he wanted a "clean" campaign, at the first sign of his impending doom, he resorts to stopping just short of calling Obama a traitor...nice and clean, and how does Obama respond..."I feel sorry for John McCain". No mud, no name calling, as that is the McCian way of campaigning as is evident by his adds, his words, his actions, brought forth from his DESPERATION.
Good day ;)
McCain say's "I had a head ache, so I took an asprin."
Obama say, "what caused the head ache" and "how do you avoid future head aches"
McCain only wants to deal with symptoms...
Obama want to avoid, stop, or cure the disease...that's called INTEILLIGENCE.
The bottom line is IF we would have defeated AlQaeda in Afghanistan, they would NOT have been able to come to Iraq, and we would not have needed the "surge" and who knows how many American and Iraqi lives would have been saved...
Obama has consistently pointed out his superior judgment as compared with Hillary Clinton, McCain and the large majority of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate who approved the authorization to go into Iraq originally. The evaluation of his judgment should not, however, as suggested by several bloggers here, stop at that decision. I am certainly willing to give him credit for his opposition at the outset, although his judgment at that time (the beginning of the war when he was not in the US Senate) was not based on access to the confidential intelligence briefings (that turned out to be flawed) and, undoubtedly influenced Hillary and many Democrats to support the resolution to authorize the war. Whether some of you like it or not, some of us are trying to size this guy up - we really don't know him. We want to get a genuine sense of his judgment at all of critical decision-making points. Give him his due, but don't avoid engaging in a real discussion about other positions he took on the conduct of the war once we were embroiled in it. If he is President he will not inherit a clean slate. We are in Iraq. There are significant consequences to a withdrawal that is premature and would leave Iraq vulnerable to the ambitions of Iran and other s. I hope he is right that in 16 months we can be out of there and Iraq can adequately defend itself. But his earlier rhetoric (during the primaries) that may have been intended to kick the Iraqi leadership into gear, was also sending the message to those Iraqis concerned about guessing wrong and aligning with the loser in this conflict, that the US wasn't going to stay around long enough to allow the moderates like Maliki to stay in power. All I'm saying is that I would like to see a little less political posturing from him and a little more candid acknowledgement that, at least in hindsight, the surge made sense and worked.
"I have a great deal of respect for John McCain circa 2000. I watched him single handedly take down Jack Abramhoff, Tom DeLay and the Texas Mafia that ran and disgraced the Republican Party."
He forgot a few of the Texas Mafia don't you think?
Voting for the Surge is like shooting yourself in the foot and congratulating yourself for putting on a Band-Aid.
Enough said.
Let’s presuppose the “Surge” was responsible for the reduction in violence in Iraq. Then, logically, the violence in Iraq could have ended much sooner if more troops had been committed earlier, say at the start of the invasion. So who’s’ responsible for not committing more troops? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and all those Senators that voted for war. McCain likes to tout his superior foreign experience judgment. Which part of that judgment was he using when he voted for a war with too few troops?
And speaking of judgment, why are we debating whether the Surge worked? The real question of judgment was whether we should have gone to war in the first place. McCain had his chance to exercise real independent judgment by not voting to deploy US troops. Instead he voted for what will go down in history as one of the 5 biggest U.S. foreign policy blunders.
Not one of the stated reasons for going to war was correct. No one estimated the financial costs correctly (close to a trillion dollars, but who’s counting?). No one planned how long we would be there. No one planned on 4000 American dead and over 30,000 wounded.
How is voting for this debacle an exercise in good judgment?
Obama will never admit that the surge in Iraq was effective and has achieved its intended goal. If he did, that would derail his support from his far left wing supporters... and there are apparently many of those. He must tow the line with the likes of moveon.org or it's over for Obama. He'll come crashing down soon anyway. Arrogance does not sit well nor pay off with he American people in a presidential election. In my opinion, Obama is arrogance personified.
So, when McCain adopted his more expanded definition of the Surge this week, he was actually agreeing with Obama? That is, at the time Congress was debating and voting on the Surge troop build-up, there were already effective counterinsurgency changes that had been in progress for several months. Sounds to me like both Obama and McCain are in violent agreement on that one.
You mean the surge of urgency to justify the same no surge policy months before. Suddenly a surge when He's about to vacate office. Thousands of soldiers most of them very young men lost their lives,listening to bush no surge policies.
.
Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey ,Terry from Ohio you say "Obama HAS ALWAYS acknowledged that the troops have helped to lower the violence. . . Obama has NOT "steadfastly refused to give any effect of the surge." It's obvious dspool hasn't been listening. Or maybe he's just been listening to the wrong program."
Terry, let's let the facts speak for themselves. And before you accuse someone else of ignorance, you might want to get your facts straight.
Here's what Obama said on January 14, 2007: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
On July 20, 2007 Obama said there was no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.
His quote - "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."
July 15, 2008 - The Daily News reports that Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign revised its website to remove criticism of the U.S. military surge.
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence."The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
Katie Couric asked the questions this week trying to get him to acknowledge that the surge had been successful - because he had not done so previously!!!! He then answers her, obviously grudgingly, that the surge had a played a role in the reduction of violence there. That was a fair answer on his part but, from my perspective, he would have gained more credibility with me if he acknowledged the obvious earlier on.
You make a fair point on McCain owning up to mistakes on entry into the war in the first place, but try to be a little bit objective when it comes to Obama. That's what I find sooo annoying and what a lot of the country will find so disappointing if he is elected. He has feet of clay just like McCain and just like every president we have ever had.
. There wasn't a single week in 2007 with over 275 attacks in Afghanistan. What kind of fool would send more troops to the theatre with less than 1/5 the amount of attacks
Mr Cubeman, On 9/11/01, 3000+ Americans died from the actions of the Taliban and Al-qaida based in Afghanistan. What kind of fool would put the focus of our military efforts ( and billions of tax payer dollars) on Iraq, a country that was a threat to no one, and allow the Taliban and Al-qaida to recover and regroup...your boys "Bush and McBush"" dropped the ball big time
A lot of people say we couldn't put more troops in Afghanistan because they were in Iraq. Those people are right. But we need to be reasonable and keep this in perspective. In June 2007 there were 1,500 attacks a week in Iraq. There wasn't a single week in 2007 with over 275 attacks in Afghanistan. What kind of fool would send more troops to the theatre with less than 1/5 the amount of attacks? If you were in charge, would you honestly have sent more troops to Afghanistan, which was far more peaceful? Of course not. It's nothing but a vapid talking point.
You've got to be kidding me. McCain did get the timing of the Anbar Awakening wrong, but of course he realizes it had a big impact on reducing violence. So you can't say McCain was right about the surge and Obama was right about the Awakening when McCain is perfectly aware that the Awakening helped.
You say Obama's plan for a pullout "probably" would have continued Iraq's downward spiral... then try to massage that horrible fate with unlikely scenarios with no chance of success like "neighboring countries stop fanning the flames". They wanted a "black hole" or they wouldn't have been fanning the flames in the first place! Instead, you should focus on the fact that you admitted - Obama's plan probably would have led to a downward spiral of chaos, genocide, and territory controlled by Al Qaeda and Sadr! That is a truly horrific outcome Obama's plan would have left us with.
This whole article is about creating doubts when the facts are clear. The surge began in June 2007 and within a few months violence was down by 80%! The fact that there were positive developments is a credit to the effectiveness of the surge and Petreus counterinsurgency strategy, not a cause for doubting it. The surge and the movment of U.S. troops into neighborhoods to protect the population gave anti-Al Qaeda and anti-Sadr Iraqis the confidence to fight back. When you have enough troops to protect those that fight on our side, more people stood up to fight alongside us. Of course Al Qaeda's brutality is what turned the Sunnis against them, but it was the surge that gave them the confidence to fight back knowing that we weren't going to abandon them to be tortured and killed - which is the fate they would have met if Obama's plan for withdrawal was used instead.
Conditions in Iraq got worse consistently for 4 years, month after month. Within a few months of the start of the surge and Petreus counterinsurgency plan violence plummets and you expect people to believe it's not mostly due to the surge? Obama said, "The surge will increase violence." and you expect people to believe he was "half right" about the surge. It's laughable! No one with any common sense is going to believe this.
On a positive note I am glad that 9 months after it became clear, Newsweek is finally reporting that the surge was a success. We certainly bash Bush every chance we get so I think he deserves a hell of a lot of credit for standing up to all the pressure to withdraw.
Obama is an incredible elitist. Who made him representative of this country? He goes around the world acting. Acting like the words he says are anything but written by his campaign stategist. He says what everyone wants him to say and yet NO ONE knows what he believes in. One day he says one thing the next state or country he says another. One day he says he had no relationship with Rezko then when he goes on trial Obama admits he has more of a relationship with this man who gets Muslims elected.
Obama is receiving his funding from “Kindheart” the organization funding Hammas before they got shut down by our government.
The terrorist love him. Wonder why?
The people of our country are so stupid that they are giving away our country just to keep Republicans out. Why the heck wouldn’t you vote Hillary in then. At least she isn’t putting us in danger by allowing Obama’s terrorist connections (Odinga, Roy Obama, Quadafi, Farahkan, Rezko, Ayers, Khalifi, Ellijah Mohammad Jr, Chechen Grp terrorist etc) access to our National Security. McCain will defend our country Obama may just give it away.
Dear Swabby420,
I DID fight in McCain's war, and it was a real waste. Luckily I didn't get shot down and like most of my fellow Vietnam vets we believe that the ONLY memorial we wanted our country to construct on our behalf was the hard won and bitter lesson that military force should only be used when absolutely necessary.
I have a great deal of respect for John McCain circa 2000. I watched him single handedly take down Jack Abramhoff, Tom DeLay and the Texas Mafia that ran and disgraced the Republican Party. He was once a great man of principles, but the ONLY way he could gain the nomination of the most corrupt politcal party in the history of this country was to sell out and sell out big time. Today he plays the role of a trigger happy idiot pandering to the same ignorant, knee jerk crowd that the cynical right wing corporate machine manages to manipulate with shallow symbols year after year.
As for the surge, Admiral Mullin says we desperately need to, but can't increase our presense in Afgahnistan because our chips are all in in Iraq. Think about it, we have been sold a bill of goods. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on weapons and we can't even field enough troops to subdues a couple of third rate countries with no armies. Much like our health care system we aren't getting much of a bang for our buck. All our gold plated stand off weapons only take us so far, somebody at the sharp end of the stick still has to get out and terrorize the populus and kick in doors
The surge was never an issue and only became a McCain talking point after Maliki agreed with Obama's 16 month troop withdrawal from Iraq timeline. Since McCain is stuck with being quoted as saying he advocates an 100 year war, he needed to gain some common sense ground and divert our attention to never creating a withdarwal timeline in the first place. He was off base before and now he is scrambling to regain the spotlight on the Iraq war. However; Obama is wiser than him.
To make matters worse for McCain, Obama called for more troops in Afghanistan and now the White House is considering to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. The Republicans should have Obama on their payroll as a political advisor.
Who's on first?
To swabby420: your ally, Isreal, also has nukes. No oil has been taken so far, that is why you have to STAY in Iraq. But make no mistake, Halliburton, Black Water, and others have made TENS of BILLIONS at least on providing overpriced services to the US military. There are 155,000 troops who make $50K/yr and 160,000 private contractors who make $120K/yr or more.
I have acknowledged the 4500 or so troops that were killed, but the whole point is that most Americans have NOT shared in the pain of service, so money is the best way to convey the picture of how much ALL Americans are really paying. Also, what are you doing in chat rooms?
How is it that none of the generals realized the surge worked until after the Iraqi prime minister announced he wanted a time table?
In fact, Petraeus and Mullen both said that they were willing to talk about "time horizons" because they were more concerned with getting the "aspirational goals" of the surge accomplished than in the troops coming home. The surge has not met the stated objectives. It may be quelling some violence but in no way has it "worked".
The Iraqi minister forced the Whitehouse's hand by stating that they agreed with Obama's policies and now they are going to try and figure out a way to say they were right and the "surge worked". I'm tired of Republican spin.
To: Logical_thinker_007
Please...Iraq's use of weapons was never about us..it was about using them on our allies, the Isrealis or someone else in the region. We have not taken one barrel of oil from the Iraqis thus far, so your notion of blood for oil is unfounded. You talk in terms of money spent...how shallow. Men and women who VOLUNTEERED gave their all in what they believed. Maybe going there and seeing for yourself how things are would set the record straight...but then again, it's probably too dangerous for you..best you stay and peruse the chat rooms and game sites...that sounds like your style.
To: adiosbushies
Lowering the bar??? Winning a conflict is adapting, overcoming, changing, defeating the enemies objectives. Militaries change tactics to win...that's the way it's done. Violence is down, you say? Good God man, that's what it's about! You stop the violence and peace breaks out!!! What a concept! Step up and admit that the surge WORKED. That's what military leaders IN THE KNOW do. Yes, we changed tactics and it worked. That's not a bad thing. Rejoice! Don't be a hater! If the Democrats would have thought of it, I'd be thanking them too! Whatever works for the troop on the ground gets my vote. Remember that. Put yourself in his shoes...he volunteered...you didn't.
To: pinkpanther87413
I guess it's all about the money with you. Lives and families mean nothing...both American and Iraqi...pretty shallow. You should volunteer to go over and see for yourself...but I wouldn't expect that from you...it might be dangerous.
Iraqi Freedom Vet
Good article and comments. I think Patreus did a very good job with what he had. Not just due to the "surge" of troops, but because he realized that if the local population doesn't like you you can't create safe conditions. Working with the Sunnis and Al Sadr was crucial in the lowering of the violence. After all, the Sunni "awakening" took about 100,000 Sunnis way from planting bombs to killing Al Qaeda. The US was always about 150,000 troops too short, so 30,000 can't have been the entire solution.
The question is, why does McCain still want to stay? The answer: the real reason Iraq was invaded was so that Halliburton and other oil companies and contractors could get back into Iraq and make money. That is why McCain wants to stay forever. I thought Saddam had chemical weapons, but I laughed at the prospect of him using them against America. After all, America has 1,600 nukes that could obliterate all of Iraq in a matter of minutes. Powell said that Iraqis were testing "crop dusting planes" as weapon delivery tools.
If I was Obama I would ask McCain the following: assuming America won in Iraq (even though the political reconciliation there is far from achieved), what did $1 Trillion, 4500 dead coalition troops, 100s of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and the destruction of America's image in the world really get you? If I was the typical American tax payer who now owes $30,000+ for the Iraq war to the Chinese, I would be incensed!
Please...don't let your ignorance of military functions and policy rule your thoughts. The surge WORKED. That's what military leaders rely on when things get tough. Just because we didn't "win" in the first year doesn't mean things were a failure. Tactics change. Please don't think that wars and conflicts are fleeting issues...they are drawn-out, down and dirty, violent, will-against-will conflicts. Don't be a fool. It took us 4 years and 35,000 people to keep communism from overtaking South Korea...Should we have stopped? We had the will and the determination to say, "this is the line you don't cross." It took us 5 years and 400,000 lives to take back Europe. We took an pretty good beating for the first couple of years...aomewhere near 200,000 dead...should we have stopped and withdrawn? We fought for 10 years in Indochina and stabalized the entire region. Did you sacrifice? Did you volunteer in any of these conflicts? I guess everyone's a military genius when it comes to Monday morning quarterbacking. We are the savior of many peoples. Don't forget that. When your say this is wasteful or not worth it, you are disrespecting every GI that fell. He was there voluntarily...not you. You didn't see the things he did, you didn't feel the things he did. All you did was judge from 3,000 miles away, based on media-spnsored information. Go there and see for yourself if we made a difference. I did. Remember what Patton said 50 years ago: "When you have your Grandson on your knee and he asks you, what did you do during the great Iraqi war, you don't have to say, I'm sorry, all I did was bitch about the whole thing and shoveled *** in Louisiana...I never did get over there and find out for myself."
Fact
We spend 2 billion a day to stay
They spend nothing, they live there
3000 years of invasions, and patients is one of the entire regions biggest quality,
You do the math
BTW, we have no buisn in Iraqui on Iraqui crimes, including sucide bombers aimed at killing Iraquis! Did they have a say aboutTimothy McVeigh??? That's an Iraqui crime against Iraq, not us!
Listen to the Generals on the ground, with free speach, key word here is listen!
Answer: Obama, he listens and adapts, and is not stuck in his ways, or tunnel visioned. Ergo Has the intellegence to change the cource when it's not right, and stay on cource of our primary target,only!
McCain has his way, or no way. As for him, at his place in life, is all he knows,so it will be done, as is, no matter what else is learned. This has yet to work
Bottom line, when all is over in Nov, I hope to see auditing of every dime spent on Iraq, just to make sure, we get what we damn well paid for!
The problem is that the news media never question the McBushies about the continuous lowering of the bar when it comes to the objectives in Iraq. They never question what winning means, always accepting without question what the McBushies say. Each time conditions on the ground change the US objective changes. Now it seems, according to McBush, we're winning, simply because violence is down. The surge has succeeded, he says, when the surge was meant to give Iraqis space to reconcile its government. I can't believe the media give them a free ride.
McBush is still fighting the Vietnam war in his head and winning is just wherever he has placed the bar at the moment.
I agree with your article about who was right ref the "surge", McCain or Obama. However, nowhere did you mention - and rarely do you hear anyone else except occasionally Obama mention - what the purpose of the surge was and based on that, the surge has only been somewhat successful. Remember, the reason for the surge was to give the Iraqi government breathing room so they could make some important political reconciliations and some important decisions such as how to divy up the oil profits. The purpose of the surge was not to cut down on the violence. Obviously that would be a by product of massing additional troops and sending most of them into Bagdag and, of course, that happened. We had done that before in places like Faluja and the bad guys just left, waited until we left and then returned. That didn't happen this time because we camped out in the Iraqi neighborhoods and thus held the ground. There has been little political accomodation since the surge began and thus the surge has been only partially successful. The biggest and most promising event was the large group of Sunnis who had boycotted the Government returned a couple of weeks ago because the Shiite government elected Sunnis to a couple of key positions and they all agreed to rejoin the government. But, don't forget as McCain has that the purpose of the surge was to allow Maliki to make political progress. None of the 3 anchors who each got an interview with Obama this last week even mentioned that and they should have.
When will McCain admit we should have never gotten into this war! Obama HAS ALWAYS acknowledged that the troops have helped to lower the violence. McCain "clings to the proposition that I'm always right". Obama has NOT "steadfastly refused ti give any effect of the surge." It's obvious dspool hasn't been listening. Or maybe he's just been listening to the wrong program.
The Sunni "awakening" deal was on the table for months if not years before the so-called surge. At some point the dim-witted U.S. adminstration finally realized that the Shiite dominated government they had installed had a distinctly Iranian bias. Up until that time the Sunni insurgents killing our troops were being supported by our loving allies in Saudi Arabia as hedge against Shiite domination of the region. We finally concluded that the Saudi brokered deal to arm the Sunnis to the teeth was to our advantage in our proxy war with Iran. The foriegn AQI fighters in Iraq never amounted to more than one percent of the insurgency and they were easily liquidated by their former Sunni allies.
The theory now is that the Sunnis will have sufficient military power to resist further ethnic cleaning extermination. While their surviving enclave in Anbar Province has no oil they do sit astride the black market trade routes now siphoning as fair portion of Iraq's oil production toward Jordan and Syria. Whether arming one faction of the Iraqi population will create conditions leading to a durable peace remains to be seen. That Sadr and the Shiite government see no profit in fighting one another for the moment should be no surprise. What EVER happens after U.S. troops leave it will not resemble the "victory" of a stable pro western government that McCain claims is within reach if we stick around in perpetuity and kill a few more of the right people.
Clearly, the "truth" gets spun by both candidates to advance their particular agenda, and dramatically so in an election year. McCain just flat out got the time frame wrong and is rightly taken to task for that. I think Obama's reticence to acknowledge the significant role the surge played in the creating the current state of affairs in Iraq is more troubling to me. It makes it appear that for political reasons, he simply won't speak straight to the American people. That he would rather tenaciously cling to an uneccessary proposition "that I'm always right" than to refreshingly acknowledge that he got this one wrong. He doesn't have to concede that he made the wrong call on going there in the first place because most Americans probably agree (with the benefit of hindsight) and he doesn't have to concede that the surge is solely responsible for current conditions. But to steadfastly refuse to give any credit to the effect of the surge, which undoubtedly has had a profound emboldening impact on both the Iraqi Army and Maliki, is either evidence of politics as usual or, worse, shows an astounding detachment from reality.
After four years of a disastrous conduct of an unnecessary war, a "surge" to that is debated as to whether it was the right thing to do? By woulda, coulda, arguments?
Certainly the violence went down and the additional troops had a major contribution in that. But what about the political objectives of which only a few have been achieved more than a year later? What of the displaced Iraqis? The corruption? The fact that America is paying off the terrorists even as this administration still insists it will not negotiate with them?
On the subject of the "surge" to the war in Iraq, I am reminded of the perennial student failing one exam after another for most of his college life who similarly touts as a big success his first exam passed with a C-.
It took him four years to earn that C- and a very complacent faculty at a college which couldn't care less how many times a student failed his exams as long as his parents could pay his fees.
And so it is with the surge: A passing grade it certainly deserves; but at what cost after four years of failure! And what does it really mean in terms of the future? Not to talk about the minor detail of the cheating by paying off the same terrorist gangs with whom the government would not negotiate.
Have we lost our senses completely? The original problem is still there to be solved. The perennial student must pass many more exams before graduation and he may not be able to cheat his way through staying in college indefinitely.
